Democrats in the US congress have approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, to testify on the current administration’s pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein, then president of Iraq, was seeking weapons of mass destruction.
The House oversight and government reform committee voted 21-10 on Wednesday that she should testify.
There may be more than 10 Republicans on that there committee.
Sean McCormack, state department spokesman, said department officials would try to answer the committee, but indicated Rice may not comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege.
That position gives “us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena,” said Henry Waxman, the House oversight committee’s democratic chairman.
There hasn’t been anything resembling Congressional oversight for six years. We’ve had a Congress self-chartered as a vendor of rubber stamps.
True – they’ve been well rewarded for their non-diligence. But, it’s about time we had a few politicians deciding how to get up on their hind legs instead of with whom to share their golf card.
In fact, there are 17 Republicans on that committee. Must be a few of what our astute neoconartists call RINO’s.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165127/
Looks like “no” is the response. It seems odd that these people would have so much to hide that they should so flagrantly be in contempt of congress. What could be so horrible that isn’t already known? Worse than torture, the destruction of posse comitatus and habeas corpus? Worse than lying the country into a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people?
That must be some doozy of a horrible act that they should be so concerned to hide it. I say, send the sergeant of arms to arrest her for contempt, and compel testimony, because they have obviously done something so low that even with their record they want to hide it, and that is kind of scary.
Great use of our tax money, this. I’m assuming, of course, that after Rice, they’ll subpoena the democrats who were on the intelligence committee who made the same claim?
Let’s just forget the fact that hundreds of weapons of mass destruction have ACTUALLY BEEN FOUND in Iraq after the invasion. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Or that Iraq was purchasing equipment to manufacture WMD’s and had violated international law in kicking out inspectors whose sole function was to ensure no weapons program was being engaged.
Liberal democrats are, truly, insane. Literally and utterly. And you and I are giving them our money, and our country.
I suppose that if Ms. Rice does not testify, she will be held in contempt of congress, tried, and jailed or fined.
jojo,
You should know that fox news is not a news source. They say that they are entertainment themselves. Fox news only brings to light the opinions of their owner, Rupert Murdock.
I suppose that you would rather give our money to the republicans who would have us fight in a civil war in another country, and pay contractors enormous amounts of money more than military personnel, to do things that are routinely done by military personnel.
Sorry,
There needs to be oversight. The amount of money spent on investigations of crimes committed by the current administration is minuscule compared to the amount that goes to contractors who are charging seven dollars for a bottle of coke, among other things. War profiteering must also stop, and there should be investigations into this as well. I can’t wait until they subpoena Cheney.
Republicans who think that they can run roughshod on the Constitution, are mistaken. The people are not going to stand for it, as was demonstrated in the 2006 elections.
It looks like jojo is drinking the neocon kool-aid.
#3, 4, 5.
Never attribute to FOX news what can be accounted for by simple brute stupidity.
jojo is a yoyo. Bend over for George yoyo.
BTW – you ever serve your country jojo – I bet the answer is a big nono.
3. I agree with you. The previous administration rationalized the meaning of “is” while the liberals of today are rationalizing what constitutes a “lie”. The current administration echoed the previous administration’s comments of Iraq & WMDs as well as using the very intel gathered (and crippled) by the previous administration. Until Howard Dean made his conspiracy assertions during his Democratic run for the presidency, everyone was pretty much on the same sheet of music. I’ve used these links before, but it’s pretty sobering to see double standards being applied:
http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/03/24/pin-the-tale-on-the-donkeys
4. From what I see with all the bashing of Fox News, it is because they tell the good news along with the bad news. For example, Fox news was the only news agency to report the entire day during summer 2004 that Vladmir Putin had a press conference explaining to the world that it was Russian Intel that told the U.S. and Britian that they had intercepted information where an Iraq attack was imminent on the U.S. and it was going to happen soon. This was prior to us ever going into Iraq. Putin did put a disclaimer that he is not establishing a link with Al Qaeda, but what’s more astonishing is no other news agency thought this was news worthy except for CNN who covered it for that morning only. The other news agencies as well as CNN on the 2nd half of their day were more focused on Bill Clinton’s then recently release autobiography.
Having been in the military, I’ve seen how CNN reports things versus Fox and I will say that Fox has often times tried to balance things out with differing perspectives more than CNN or the others. Just my observation. Other than that, if those who hate Fox News because they happen to report good news on what the current administration has accomplished in addition to the failures, then you’re not really wanting the big picture, you just want little pictures to support your opinion. I’m not saying Fox is perfect. I prefer to get my news from overtly biased individuals since I explicitly know their viewpoint. You don’t get that with Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. But I do believe Fox tries harder.
5, 6: Although your gripes with Fox are duly noted, what does it prove to use ad hominum comments against those you happen to disagree with? It seems liberals tend to do that quite a bit and I can’t figure out why. Your points lose a lot of merit for those who are fence sitters when they see your namecalling.
If you guys are truly fair about the whole situation and want to say Bush got us into this war and lied to everyone, shouldn’t we be saying the same of many Democrats who echoed the very same sentiment prior to Bush becoming president up all the way to the Howard Dean comments? I think if Bush is guilty of something it seems he agreed with too many Democrats who then flipped it back on him. Just what I see. I don’t care one way or the other if you want to call Bush a liar, but at least apply the same standards to EVERYONE and not just people on the opposite side of the aisle.
7. We crossed posts. I agree 100%. The double standards and looking the other way certainly apply don’t they? Too bad it’s down to what’s best for one’s party rather than best for this country.
Guyver – I concur. What angers me is that instead of conducting a balanced and honest inquiry into Iraqi WMD Intelligence and UN diplomatic failures, the Democratic leadership will be too busy inflicting political damage against the President and the conduct of the war instead of protecting the security interests of the United States against global terrorism.
There’s also 22 Democrats on that Committee. Can we get a vote breakdown?
I have a feeling that the Democrats are looking for too many press releases and talking points to actually get any real investigations done. They’ve already started down the Valerie Plame Joe Wilson path, and that isn’t going to lead anywhere until they realize that Wilson is lying.
Is that Tom Daschle in the picture? I don’t get it.
#8 – Guyver,
Thank you for rebuking the use of name-calling. I would personally like to state that the use of legitimate non-derogatory labels can often shorten a post by identifying a group of people with similar beliefs. Though I do not fall completely into any given category, being human and attempting to form my own judgements on most issues, the following labels mostly apply to me and do not offend me in the least:
liberal
antitheist
environmentalist
conservationist
civil liberties advocate (card carrying member of the ACLU is usually said in a derogatory way and yet does not offend me in the least and is true.)
So, what I would like to know is what label or labels would be acceptible and unoffensive to those who are often referred to as neocons and actually are members of that small minority of Republicans that truly support the complete republican party platform, complete (or at least a large subset of the issues). In my mind these include but are not limited to:
* support the death penalty
* oppose abortion
* oppose sex education
* oppose condom distribution
* oppose national health care
* oppose welfare
* support the PATRIOT act
* support prayer in schools
* support the war in Iraq
* support teaching creationism in schools
* oppose stem cell research
What is the appropriate non-offensive term for such an individual? Conservative certainly does not apply. Conservatives oppose change. This group wants change. Fiscal conservatives are for small government with reasonable financial practices and low debt. George H.W. Bush doubled the national debt in four years. Prior to the war in Iraq, the debt to GDP ratio was already higher than it was just prior to the stock market crash of 1929, the previous record. So, our administration and its supporters are neither conservative nor fiscally conservative.
But, back on topic, in testimony, Rice said that she may have made statements that were counterfactual. That is called lying. Whether others have also done so is not the issue. She lied. She’s getting called on it.
If others have lied too. Call them on it as well.
#8
Neocons have been doing the name calling thing for years. Just putting it back in your face. Also pointing out that you neocons talk a tough game – yet I have yet to run into any that have actually ponied up and son or daughters or other loved ones to support your war. How about just ponying up some more money to pay for it all?
You post is just long winded proof that you’re just as active hypocrite as anyone else.
That’s not Dash-hole, that’s Scooter Libby.
#8 – Guyver,
Would theocrat be a more accurate and less offensive term? I’m guessing it might be offensive, though I genuinely don’t know anyone that fits the bill well enough to know. It seems accurate based on the laundry list I posted above. Remember, I’m really not trying to offend here. I called myself an antitheist, which probably sounds like an offensive term to you, but does not to me. So, I really am curious if theocrat would simply sound like an accurate and legitimate label and not be derogatory.
As National Security Adviser Rice oversaw the worst security failure since Pearl Harbor. As Secretary of State she has overseen the worst foreign policy bungle since Vietnam … or ever (only time will tell.)
Isn’t this enough to get her canned? Instead, Bush will give her a medal.
Guyver, You talk way too much and say very little.
Guyver,
Good to know you too think for yourself. And I agree that name-calling is not a way to make a point. I am genuinely looking for an inoffensive label for the group of people who, unlike yourself, really do support the majority of the republican platform. I guess I’ll have to find someone who actually does, if there really is anyone who does.
My list however, was not a list of labels. It was a list of beliefs. I’m looking for a valid inoffensive term for the people that can believe in that entire list of horrifically contradictory items.
I’ve suggested theocrat, which will likely be considered offensive, because only morality that has been heavily twisted by religion could actually believe in that entire laundry list and want to legislate that way.
If neocon is not acceptable though, we need another word.
20. Actually, I don’t have a problem with neocon whatsoever. Looking back, I mistakenly cited Improbus’ comment which was really meant for Sounds the Alarm.
I also for some reason, totally misread where you were coming from. I was thinking you were throwing me in the group of Neo Cons and I realize I can sound like that when I defend Bush on certain matters.
That being said, I would say “today’s liberals” are more like “neolibs”, because it’s my humble opinion that liberals of the 60s (like JFK) would probably have left the Democratic party much like Ronald Reagan and went over to the Republicans. I guess another substitution for “neo” could be “extreme” or “radical” depending on your perspective.
At this point, I really don’t rely on party affliliations anymore since you can have conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.
The topics you mention I think we both agree as they are worded usually fit a conservative…. but even then, there’s different shades of conservatism….. and liberalism for that matter. I think if someone is very absolute on certain topics to the point it infringes upon people (and I realize this can be interpreted differently), you can just say extreme conservative or radical liberal, or something to that effect.
I think there’s a clear distinction between:
antitheist / atheist
environmentalist / tree hugger
conservationist
civil liberties advocate
and using radical / extreme in front of those words.
I’ll admit I am guilty of generalizing extreme/radical liberal into liberal, but for me the extreme / radical is usually implied. At some point there’s only so much you can do to be “civil”. In the end, it’s usually plain common sense on what the intent of the comment is.
Notice how Sounds the Alarm denies I am sincere about my words and calls me a hypocrite when he/she doesn’t even know a thing about me. He/she didn’t have much to say and tried taking a stab at my sincerety and honesty as though he/she knew me.
14. I suppose with what little you know of me and my military past, you can erroneously come to a hasty conclusion that I am somehow a conservative and a hypocrite. Both can be nothing further from the truth. As for the NeoCons doing the name calling “for years”, does it really matter if what you say is true? How about taking the high ground and just make your point?
Not that you really care, but I’ve served in the Army and the Navy. Although there are others who have done much more than I, I can recollect off the top of my head 4 theater of operations I was involved in. After “getting out”, I landed a really good paying job. I tried switching over to the Air Force as a commissioned officer back in 2004 which I did not get because they seem to prefer hooking up one of their guys before letting an “outsider” in.
And if I had a son or daughter, I would not mind that they join the military, but it is their choice to join not mine. My Dad was career military and never ponied me up into joining. I made my own decisions, they can too. If the opportunity presented itself now, I would not have a problem getting back in (my employer has given me their full support if the opportunity comes up). You can either accept this to be true, or you can just say I’m talking a “tough game”. That’s all I have to say about it since there’s nothing to prove to you.
Guyver,
True liberals still abound. I am one. I know many. We tend to vote for the Democratic party because the only other party out there is the party of the neocons. I view that party as truly and literally theocratic.
So, I’m left voting for the party that killed my party. It was the Democrats that allowed the neocons of the world to make liberal a dirty word because Dems didn’t want the competition.
I don’t agree with the liberal party line 100% either, but find it closer to my own beliefs than any other party available today. As for the smaller parties, none really match my beliefs any more closely than the Dems.
Further, in the general election, to vote for anyone not on the main party tickets or not to vote at all is synonymous with voting for whomever one hates the most.
One thing I would say about the Dems though that makes them significantly less bad than the Reps is that they are worse at keeping their ducks in a row. Republican candidates are kept much more tightly in line voting that neocon line nearly 100%.
I don’t doubt you are sincere about your words or that you have managed to convince yourself of the consistency of your viewpoints. I personally respect your right to your viewpoints and am glad to read the level of thought you have put into them. That puts you on a higher plain than many. That said, I respectfully disagree strongly with your viewpoints and do find many of them quite morally repugnant. We can go into specifics on threads more specifically related to each one.
Thirty years ago, your views would have been taken as quite extreme and radically to the right. Now that we have moved so far to the extreme right as a society that the New York Times appears liberal, I have become the extremist, because of my recognition that the Time was and still is just slightly right of center.
22. It’s unfortunate we’re limited to a two party system. I agree with your general election comment. It’s hard at times to vote the way you want to because the overlying fear is the person you really want in office won’t get it and you’re afraid your vote would be wasted on them and allow the very person you don’t want in office to get that opportunity.
I think many conservatives make the same mistake that I often do and that is implying the extreme / radical with the word liberal. It’s a bad habit.
Managed to convice myself? 🙂 I like how you said that. I’m a Libertarian so there will be times a extreme conservative will tick me off and other times that a radical liberal will do the same. I think a fellow liberal on this forum has labeled Libertarians as “greedy conservatives”. 🙂 I believe everyone should have the right to pursue happiness. I don’t believe that should be at the expense of others. I have specific viewpoints on property rights, accumulation of wealth, taxes, etc. And in each of these cases, I don’t think it’s government’s role to “level the playing field” nor is it government’s role to tell me how to live my life.
I’m not so certain if my viewpoints would have been considered “extreme” to the right 30 years ago, but it’s relative.
With respect to the NYT, I would rather have the days of overtly biased newspapers come back. I don’t believe in objective reporting. I don’t believe there is such a thing. We are all biased individuals. We can try to reduce our bias, but even under the lens of scrutiny you can find some bias. For me, I measure bias in how each agency spoon feeds us our news and look at what was mentioned, but more importantly what was not mentioned. I mentioned above about the Vladmir Putin press conference because for me that is very news worthy given Russia’s stance on our going into Iraq. Yet for some reason Clinton’s autobiography was more newsworthy. That is but one example. But what I do see a problem with in today’s newspapers is that many journalists write their articles in a way that makes it seem like editorial comments. Editorials are supposed to be opinion-based, not the articles the journalists write. I want the facts, and all of them.
In the end, it’s darn near impossible to try and get an objective sampling from all the papers I believe to be biased who say they’re objective. I take the lazy way out many times and go fo the overtly biased news. It’s not a perfect system, but I think it may be better than papers who claim to be “objective”. It’s a shame that we may be separated geographically. I think we could have some pretty good coffee talks and you may be able to convince me the errors of my ways. 🙂
We all have experiences that shape our perception of the world. Who’s to say I wouldn’t have the same outlook as you if I grew up the same way?
Guyver,
Yeah. I bet we’d have some good heated discussions. I think Heinlein had the best tagline for libertarians. “Freedom to starve.”
Misanthropic Scott you can call us conservatives all the “labels ” you threw out were all things I agreed with and I am a conservative. A neocon as you put it, is a group in line with the KKK and militias, conservatives are not neocons and neocons are not conservatives but since neocon has that wonderful Nazi ring which you guys like to call any one who disagrees with you I can see why you like to use it so much
Are they going to subpoena Bill Clinton too?
Clinton told King: “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
And why don’t they subpoena Sandy Berger and ask him what was on those documents he took from the archives and cut up with scissors?
Impeach the Bush Administration – every one of those useless bastards
Pmitchell,
I think you totally missed my point. You’re still making it sound like neocon is a bad word. I’m asking for a better one for someone who believes my list of attributes. I’m looking for a non-offensive name for that. You give me no choice other than neocon and then claim it has the ring of nazi. That’s silly in the extreme.
Guyver,
I was giving some more thought to your comments. It sounds almost like a fun challenge to try to get you to change your beliefs. I’d like give it a try. Starting with the very basics. First, having been hammered by the neocons for my definition before, I’m talking about the modern american liberal, as the definition that most closely matches my thoughts. So, here are the bases upon which my liberalism is founded. (Disclaimer, these are my own. I am in no way representing anyone else’s views or redefining the term liberal.)
1) I am a staunch supporter of civil rights and liberties.
2) I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself.
3) I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, including paying higher taxes.
So, Guyver, which of these statements do not match your thinking? I’m thinking that if I can get you to these tenets, I can make you a liberal.
Also, to get from liberal to environmentalist, these are the two additional tenets that do it for me.
4) I extend my beliefs to other species.
5) I recognize that humans, as animals, are part of the environment and will not live without it.
Do you disagree with any of these?
To everyone else reading this, I apologize if this is an unwanted tangent to the original conversation. If it’s a wanted tangent, feel free to join the fray.
#28 – You are not really very misanthropic at all, are you? In fact, you kinda suck at being a misanthrope.
Don’t search for a non-offensive word for neo-cons. They don’t deserve to not be offended.
#28 – Just kinda wondering about your definition of less fortunate. Could it be that I’m unfortunately shorter and more bald than you, in addition to this pesky dark complexion, or that I unfortunately have less because I’m not willing to work or sacrifice more to earn an amount that you might consider fortunate. If you really want to pay more taxes, just do it. “Contribute” all you like and don’t accept a refund. Of course if you pay nothing, as many do, then you willingness to pay more is disingenuous at best.
the problem with the whole, “the Democrats said it, too!” is twofold:
(1) the Bush Administration controlled the sources of intelligence about Iraq. The Democrats in Congress had no choice but to rely upon what they were being told. Frankly, I think that it did not occur to most of them that the Bushies would be so cynical to exaggerate (or lie about) the WMD evidence. Further, it is documented that the Bushies made very specific statements that were known within the intelligence community to be based upon very, VERY dubious intel even at the time, specifically the Niger-uranium connection.
(2) a lot of liberal Democrats voted AGAINST the war. in fact, a majority of Democrats in the House did so. Many of those who voted in favor of the war now say if they had known then what they know now about the WMD, they would not have voted the way they did. The same cannot be said for the Bushies who have, ostrich-like, stuck their heads in the sand and refused to admit that, with no WMD and no Saddam-Al Queda connection, this war was obviously a mistake.
oh, and those on the blog who say “the surge is working!” should keep in mind that it is no longer the White House line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
please update your talking-points accordingly.